Transgender men…that is. That’s right, transgender men can now use the ladies’ room in New York’s transit system after the MTA was sued for arresting a transgender man for using the ladies’ room. According to the Daily News “the Metropolitan Transportation Authority agreed to allow riders to use MTA rest rooms ‘consistent with their gender expression’….” To beat the boat, the MTA is requiring that all their employees undergo transgender sensitivity training. Can you believe that? People have to undergo training because their moral compass and common sense tells them there is something wrong with those who want to be, and look/act like the opposite sex.
I don’t plan on developing my thoughts fully here, but in principle I strongly oppose any sort of sensitivity training. It is the logical outflow of what Pope Benedict XVI called the “dictatorship of relativism.” When relativism is the reigning moral philosophy, the tendency is to make evil out to be good, good out to be evil, and forcibly silence (if not punish) those who refuse to consider evil good like the rest of the “enlightened” society. Sensitivity training is a baby step toward the dictatorship of relativism in this country. It boldly proclaims that those with traditional moral values are wrong. While the sensitivity trainers cannot force people to change their beliefs, they can force them to keep silent about them, thus effectively allowing evil to reign supreme, unchallenged. Sensitivity training is the strong-arming of liberal morality on the morally conservative American people. And we let them do it….
Thinking to Believe 
November 1, 2006 at 2:53 am
Ever watched Ally McBeal? Lots of good scenes in the “uni-sex.”
LikeLike
November 9, 2006 at 10:16 pm
Jason, even if you think there’s something wrong with transgender people, that doesn’t mean anyone should be harassed when they try to pee. The settlement you refer to just acknowledges a law that has been on the books in New York City for years.
Please read this New York Post article, which describes how the MTA Police officers harassed Stone, in complete violation of the law. I’d be interested in knowing how you’d propose to get these cops to follow the law without any training.
LikeLike
November 10, 2006 at 10:24 pm
When a man is trying to pee in the ladies rest-room, no, they should not be left alone. They should be run out of the bathroom by those in it, or taken out of the bathroom by the police. I’m not justifying the rude comments made by the police officers, but I don’t disagree with their actions.
Whether it is legal is not the issue. The issue is whether it is right for a man dressing as a woman to use the women’s rest-room. People are not comfortable with that. The women who use that bathroom should not be forced by law to share their bathroom with someone who is not of their gender. It makes them feel uncomfortable, and rightly so. It’s amazing how no one is concerned about their rights. They’re only concerned about the rights of a tiny tiny minority of people who are deeply confused about their sexuality.
If an application of the existing law allowed transgender people to use public restrooms of their non-birth sex, how did the cops manage to arrest the man three times? Wouldn’t the police chief have told them they could not do so?
LikeLike
November 17, 2006 at 3:39 pm
Jason, what is your definition of “sensitivity training”? I think some sensitivity training, as I understand it anyway, is necessary, especially in the workplace.
You are obviously against woman being placed in uncomfortable situations, as noted by your protest against transgendered males using the ladies’ room.
There are a lot of work situations that can make women uncomfortable, too. Men can say and act in ways that they feel is totally harmless, but cause women to feel threatened. Sensitivity training can raise awareness on these issues.
Older people sometimes use the “N” word, not realizing that it’s now a very offensive word. There’s a lot of examples out there.
I think what you are really against is this notion that it “offends” people if you talk about something they don’t agree with, even if you’re discussing it in a positive light. For example, say I’m talking to Bob about church, and we’re having a nice conversation. But Sue overhears me and gets “offended.” Sue then asks me to change the subject, or she goes to my boss and says she’s feeling oppressed. That’s ridiculous.
But say instead that Bob and Sue are talking about how all Christians are idiots. Or two Christians are talking about how all atheists are going to hell. Well, then that’s insensitive. I’m not saying it’s insensitive for them to EVER discuss this topic. I’m saying it doesn’t belong in the workplace.
Sensitivity training, as I understand it, helps raise awareness about cultural diversity, and is usually beneficial all around. For example, when I worked the University Writing Center at Cal Poly, the majority of our clients were foreign students. We were taught to never show the bottom of our feet to certain cutlures (by propping our feet up on a table, etc.) because it was the equivalent of flipping someone off. And we were also told to not compliment people of certain ethnicities because, in their culture, if you like it, then they are obligated to give it to you. So, if I said, “nice shirt” to a certain student, they would feel to have to give it to me or buy me one.
I agree that relativism is dangerous. And I, too, get frustrated with this whole notion that everything I believe in is now offensive to the world at large and must be kept hidden. There’s seems to be an agenda in the media and secular colleges to make anything Christian automatically offensive. But I haven’t attended a “sensitivity training” that promotes this notion.
I know you said you weren’t going to fully discuss your thoughts on this topic here. But your principle of strongly opposing any sort of sensitivity training intrigues me. And since you put it out there, I decided to comment on it.
LikeLike
December 1, 2006 at 10:32 pm
Seni,
I don’t have a well-defined definition, but generally I think of sensitivity training as an exercise by which superiors indoctrinate inferiors with their values and define acceptable and expected behaviors. That’s probably not a good definition, so let me go find one from the internet. I’m back. Sensitivity training is “psychological techniques and programs designed to change the standards, attitudes and behavior of individuals.” Much better!
I don’t have a problem with a school training their students how other cultures view or interpret certain behaviors that are harmless in our culture. I don’t have a problem with an employer conveying to their male employees how certain behaviors can make their female coworkers feel uncomfortable. But there’s a difference between being informative (the examples you gave) and being demanding. A lot of the sensitivity training I hear about doesn’t consist of conveying helpful information to an audience who is eager to learn how to avoid unnecessarily offending their neighbor, but rather an indoctrination seminar that pushes politically correct views (religious pluralism, pseudo-tolerance) onto a disagreeing audience with an ever-so-gentle threat of force against those who refuse to silence their dissent.
Of course, you’ll never see a session on ways women make men feel uncomfortable in the workplace: how they dress, being flirtatious (or perceived as such because of their “sweet” female nature). Part of the reason is because too many men enjoy provocatively dressed and flirty women in the workplace, but the other reason is because it would be politically incorrect to tell a woman that she looks like a hoochie. In fact, most men would fear being sued for sexual harassment if they pointed out such a thing to a woman (even if they didn’t call her a hoochie).
This highlights a problem with sensitivity training. So much of it is about political correctness. It’s politically correct to tell a man he can’t make passes at a woman in the workplace, but it’s not politically correct to tell a woman she is dressing too seductively; so we get sensitivity training for the former but not the latter.
And so it goes with a host of issues. And that’s where I see force being involved, and that’s where I object. The group in charge is forcing everyone else to adopt their values (or at least to act like the do). How many Americans respect transsexuals? Very few! And yet people are being forced into silence about their disapproval through sensitivity training.
People are being subjected to this kind of sensitivity training because the powers that be cannot accept the fact that the majority of people continue to choose moral common sense over political correctness. They don’t agree with the latest liberal perspective in political vogue, so they are silenced under threat of force: losing their job, being fined, etc.
What happened to free speech? What happened to our ability to let the immoral know we disapprove of their behavior? Why are we being forced to be respectful of evil by having to silence our tongues against it? Evil spreads when there is no voice against it. For example, if men aren’t allowed to tell a woman she is dressing too provocatively she will keep doing it, and do more of it. I’m not for men talking to women like they are sex objects, but I think it would do society good for men to be able to tell women how the way they dress affects them. Maybe women would stop dressing that way so as to avoid the same remarks in the future. But without the remarks—without the negativity, without the shame—more and more flesh is exposed. Without criticism against homosexuality, homosexuals are emboldened. Without criticism against abortion, more women will obtain one. That’s just the way it is. Sensitivity training squashes some valuable public moral dissent that would do us good. The leftists who are promoting the training know that. Hopefully we do too.
Maybe my take on sensitivity classes only describes a small portion of sensitivity training classes. I don’t know. Maybe my view of sensitivity training classes has been jaded by reading too much Tongue Tied (reports on worldwide examples where political correctness ties our tongues: http://tonguetied.us/c_archives.php)!
Jason
LikeLike